Religion
Related: About this forumHow to be a tolerant atheist.
From an essay that pretty much sums up my position.
"You say you have a god. You are an honest and intelligent person so, although I do not have a god, I believe you. If you were to tell me that you have a carpet in your lounge I would believe that too. But - if you were to go on to tell me that you can take this carpet onto your patio, sit cross-legged upon it, ask it to fly you to Samarkand and it will; then I will choose not to believe you. I would claim that there is no such carpet. The same applies to your god. If you tell me that your god has attributes which I find inconsistent with what I know science has revealed of the universe and with my own life experience, then I will claim that there is no such god and consequently that you must be deluded."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/rogers02.htm
I do use the word god in conversation, though, and don't go out of my way to avoid it. "God" has it's own definition for each individual. For me, it means everything there is, ever was and ever will be in an infinite universe and a reality unconstrained by time, dimension and knowledge. It has nothing to do with creation, an almighty being or any other mythology.
msongs
(67,441 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,485 posts)When people say they believe in God, it's reasonable to assume that they mean a vaguely anthropomorphic deity, an almighty being that created the universe. Certainly that's the reasonable assumption in the West, where most people are either monotheists or atheists/agnostics.
It's a silly belief. If an honest and intelligent person tells me he believes in God, I won't pursue the matter unless he does. If he does pursue it, I'll tell him that his belief is silly, and I'll ask him to provide proof.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)If they say they believe in an almighty creator, then I assume they are using the word in it's archaic Judeo-Christian sense. I use the word in a colloquial sense, the same way as I may say "damn", "shit", "hell" or "fuck".
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I saw the movie Prometheus. It was a pretty good movie, certainly an eyeful although I wouldn't expect it to change your life. But like all movies, it depends on the suspension of disbelief to work. If it works we will actually be fooled, for a while, into believing the characters are real and we we will empathize (or despise) them as if they actually existed. Just like religion has us empathize with Jesus, despise Satan, and generally offer us a sounding board for our own humanity.
And that's about all there is to it.
truebrit71
(20,805 posts)You lucky bastard...I paid $12 for mine...and I bet it wasn't 50% better...dammit...
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I snuck in to see Laser Blast and felt ripped off. As far as I'm concerned those fuckers still owe me money.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)They did Laserblast on one of their episodes. Funny stuff.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I simply let people believe whatever they want, and don't object to it, whatever it is. The subject almost never comes up in conversation around these parts, but if someone insists on telling me about their religious beliefs I just say something innocuous like, "Oh, that's nice."
If someone were to ask me about my beliefs I'd tell them I'm a panentheist, which is enough to make them stop and "Say what?", which would allow me to explain. So far the question has never come up.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)But when asked, I am more likely to say I am an atheist (if I want to shut down further discussion) or pantheist (if I'm in the mood to really engage). I have never been able to wrap my head around the divine aspect of panentheism, though it does intrigue me.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)And then by exploring the idea that the my consciousness both contains and acts within the universe. That idea is in turn isomorphic to the concept that "god is both transcendent and immanent" but without requiring a deity.
Simple, no?
The American spiritual philosopher Ken Wilber is a panentheist in this sense, though he tends to complicate the idea too much for my taste.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Thanks for clarifying my own position. Am not familiar with Wilber, but will check him out.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But does anybody really believe that if all the religionists in this country did was go around holding beliefs in their heart and sharing them with like minded people, or even saying to others once in a while that they believed in a god or went to a church, we'd have the problems we do? Or any problem at all? Are any of the real problems with religion the result of anything but attempts by religionists to force their particular beliefs on everyone, or to insist that they be supported and promoted by the government? This author rather blithely ignores all of that, and wastes his time demolishing straw men to fill column inches.
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Oh, wait...
trotsky
(49,533 posts)and been chided severely for being intolerant, militant, fundie, insulting, etc.
Fascinating.
humblebum
(5,881 posts)for quite a while.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Whether you'll admit it or not.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)Your concern about civility is noted.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I can ramp it up with the best of them. Tolerance is my position, not civility.